these duties could lead to non-ratification, or the value of the report of the judge in charge of the court, of the interview with the person assessed or of any other element forming part of the ratification process. This means that the actions and omissions that could lead to a non-ratification decision were not defined in the law or in any other norm. The foregoing also has an impact on the right to know in advance and in detail the accusation made, to the extent that within the framework of evaluation processes of public officers, the scope of this right requires that the evaluated person be able to establish if a breach is of such magnitude that it may lead to nonratification in the post (supra para. 71) and implies a violation of the principle of legality in relation to the duty to adopt provisions of domestic law. 90. In addition to the foregoing, the Court confirms that, from the provisions of the aforementioned article 233 of the Organic Law of the Judiciary, it follows that the Judicial Clerk works directly with the Judge, exercises the functions of a certifying officer and, consequently, makes it possible for the former to have timely access to all the necessary information to adopt resolutions, to enact them and for them to be known by the parties in the relevant case. They are a relevant auxiliary of justice, without whose collaboration, the exercise of the judiciary would become impossible or, at least, very difficult, which justifies the application of the provisions of articles 8(1) and 8(2) of the Convention. B.3. Conclusion 91. In accordance with statements in the above paragraphs, the Court finds that the State is responsible for the violation of the rights to know in advance and in detail the accusation made, to have adequate time and means for a defense, to expect duly reasoned decisions, as well as the principle of legality, contained in Articles 8(1), 8(2) and 9 of the American Convention, in relation to the obligations to respect and guarantee the rights and adopt provisions of domestic law, contained in Articles 1(1) and 2 of the same Treaty. VII-2 REASONABLE TIME PERIOD AND JUDICIAL PROTECTION 70 A. Arguments of the parties and the Commission 92. The Commission indicated that the State must provide effective judicial remedies to those who claim to be victims of human rights violations, which must be substantiated in accordance with the rules of due process. It recalled the elements developed in the Court's case law to determine the effectiveness of the term, and it argued that the States must guarantee compliance with the decisions in which a remedy has been granted. Pursuant to the foregoing, the Commission considered that after the decision of non-ratification, the presumed victim filed appeals that were rejected without a substantive analysis of the violations of due process and, in particular, without taking into account the ratification file. It also held that, after the decision of August 4, 1986, in which the Supreme Court ordered the judge in the case to issue a new ruling, 31.- Give the Deposit and Consignment Fund and entities that make deliveries a full or partial certified copy, of the respective certificate as proof of payment; 32.- Post a copy of the Judicial Tariff in the front of office for public view; 33.- Keep the files duly registered in boxes or files, classifying them in alphabetical order according to the claimant’s first surname; 34.- Add ten percent to the regulated procedural costs, which will preferably be deducted from the first sums delivered by the principal, and remit it to the Judicial Mutual Association, with the corresponding official letter from the Court and proceed in the same way with the judicially ordered ten percent surcharge on personal costs and fees, which must be sent to the Bar Association of the corresponding District; and 35.- Fulfill remaining obligations required of them by law.” Decree Law No. 14605 of July 25, 1963. Organic Law of the Judiciary (evidence file, folios 684 to 686). 70 Articles 8(1) and 25 of the American Convention. 25